Predicting Complete versus Incomplete Long-Term Functional Independence after Acute AIS Grade D Spinal Cord Injury: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The proportion of patients with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade D traumatic spinal cord injuries (tSCI) is increasing. Although initial motor deficits can be relatively mild, some individuals fail to recover functional independence. Objectives: This study aims to identify factors associated with failure to reach complete functional independence after AIS grade D tSCI. Methods: An observational prospective cohort study was conducted at a level 1 trauma center specialized in SCI care. A prospective cohort of 121 individuals with an AIS-D tSCI was considered. The baseline characteristics, length of acute stay, need for inpatient rehabilitation, and 12-month functional status were assessed. Univariate and classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reaching complete versus incomplete functional independence (defined as perfect total SCIM III score at 12-month follow-up). Results: There were 69.3%, 83.3%, and 61.4% individuals reaching complete independence in self-care, respiration/sphincter management, and mobility, respectively. A total of 64 individuals (52%) reached complete functional independence in all three domains. In the CART analysis, we found that patients are more likely to achieve complete functional independence when they have a baseline motor score ≥83 (65% individuals) and if they present fewer medical comorbidities (70% individuals if Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] ≤4). Conclusion: About half of individuals with AIS grade D tSCI can expect complete long-term functional independence. It is important to recognize early during acute care individuals with baseline motor score <83 or a high burden of comorbidities (CCI ≥5) to optimize their rehabilitation plan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".